Chapter Nine: The Case of the Ingenious A
Chapter Nine: The Case of the Ingenious A
 |
| 116. Law's 1800 house became the fulcrum of the New Varnum Hotel |
Some 42 years after Thornton and Tayloe died in 1828 and shortly before his own death, one of the three surviving children of Tayloe, who had thirteen, credited Thornton for designing the Octagon. In an 1888 magazine article about the Octagon, restoration architect Glenn Brown endorsed the family legend. In 1896, he followed up the 1888 article with an article about Thornton's other designs. He credited him for designing and superintending construction of two houses that the General had built just north of the Capitol to house congressmen. Work on the Octagon and the General's house began in 1799. That same year, work began on Thomas Law's five story brick house just south of the Capitol. It had oval rooms like the Octagon. In 1901, a lawyer named Allen Clark wrote a dual biography of Greenleaf and Law, but didn't mention who designed Law's house. However, Clark introduced the name of William Lovering in the conversation about who designed old houses still standing. He credited Lovering for building Greenleaf's houses and The Maples.
W. B. Bryan's 1914 authoritative history of the "national capital," cited Mrs. Thornton's just published 1800 diary and sang Thornton praises: "...her husband being engaged in preparing detailed plans of the work to be done at the capitol, as well as other architectural work he was engaged in at the time, as, for example, making the plans and superintending the building of the Octagon House...." But Bryan, a local "newspaper man," also dug into the commissioners' records and found an order to lay out a building lot for Lovering. He noted that "If Mr. Lovering was the principal in this enterprise, and not merely the architect, he did not carry it out, as a house was built there in the latter part of 1799 by Thomas Law...." Bryan also cited Clark's research and described Lovering as combining "what was quite common then and for many years later the business of builder with the profession of architect."(1) That's a good point, but doesn't quite describe what Lovering combined. He could also superintend the construction of several houses, each for a different client, at the same time. That he designed the houses obviously made it easier for him to do that job. Being the designer also better justified his being paid even though he was not always on site like other contractors while he visited his other projects.
That on September 12, Lovering joined the commissioners' surveyor to trace the outer walls of a house for Law on Lot 1 in Square 689 should have nothing to do with an examination of Thornton's designs.
 |
| Division Sheet for Square 689 |
However, like the Octagon, the house would face an intersection with an acute angle, New Jersey Avenue and C Streets SE. Also, in his 1989 book on the Octagon, Ridout identified Lovering, not Thornton, as superintending architect at the Octagon. That raised the possibility that builder/architect Lovering designed the Octagon. Ridout dismissed Lovering as a mere carpenter. In his 1995 discussion of Thornton as a residential architect, C. M. Harris dismissed Lovering's designs as "conventional and unadventurous." He also credited Thornton as the designer of Law's house. Thus, Bryan's suspicion that Lovering was its architect was wrong.(3)
When Lovering joined the surveyor on September 12, he had to have the design of the house in hand. The lines of the lots in the square had been decided in 1792 and ownership of the lots decided in 1795. The commissioner's surveyor had to make sure the walls of the house were parallel to and the proper distance from the neighboring street. Whoever designed the house solved that problem with oval rooms that presented a front of bow windows to the angled intersection.
Although undated and not widely known, the contract for building the house signed by Law and Lovering is extant. Archivists mislabeled the eleven page document as being written "circa 1794," so it escaped the scrutiny of researchers interested in what Law was planning to build in 1798. The document begins "Particular description and manner of building a house for Thomas Law Esq. fronting the side of New Jersey Avenue and South C Street on Square 689 for $5800 as per drawings marked A.B.C.D.... " The document then specifies building materials, dimensions, and the use of latches, sashes, etc. The "elliptical rooms" are mentioned but not described save for their height, 12 feet and 10 feet respectively, and that their walls were to be framed by wood scantling. Unfortunately, drawings A.B.C.D. have not been found. The contract does not explicitly say that Lovering drew the designs.(4)
The house floor plans with oval rooms in Thornton's papers don’t resemble it. Nor is there any reason to assume that Thornton’s yet to be built oval chambers in the Capitol inspired Law.
Hoban’s oval rooms in the President’s house had already been built. Oval
rooms in houses became fashionable in late 18th century Britain and France. New
country seats had them. In 1786, while on a prolonged stay in England,
William Hamilton sent instructions on how to build Woodlands, then
outside Philadelphia but now in that city's Fairmount Park. His mansion has two notable oval rooms, a parlor and dining room. Another
mansion now in the park, Lemon Hill, which was built in 1800, also has
oval rooms. An architectural historian notes "its use of ovals and
circular spaces suggests a French influence." On 10th and Chestnut
Streets, then comfortably outside the crowded city, L'Enfant's very
French mansion built for Robert Morris also had "curvilinear elements,"
but the architect who gave the federal city so many angled avenues had
none to address in Philadelphia. L'Enfant did not use ovals. However,
putting oval rooms in a confined townhouse, as opposed to a rambling
country house or a monumental building like the Capitol or President's
house, would be more challenging.(5)
The only sketch of the floor plan is in a letter Benjamin Latrobe wrote to the gentleman who bought the house from Law in 1815. The buyer wanted to upgrade the heating system. Latrobe suggested "a handsome grate" for the principal oval room, an oval marked "B" in his sketch. The ballroom in Latrobe's sketch was in the next door house that Law financed but another man contracted to have built. Through that arrangement, a judge would give Law credit toward fulfilling his requirement to build 166 houses.(6)
In an 1800 letter, Law delighted in describing his house: “on the ground floor there is a handsome oval room 32 by 24 and a room adjoining 20 by 28 - the oval room is so handsomely furnished that I wish to leave the eagle round glasses, carpet and couches in them as they are suited to the room - above stairs is a dressing room and a bedroom 21 by 20 - a center room with a fireplace about 17 by thirteen, an oval room 30 by 25 - and a room 20 by 11 with a fireplace - the same upstairs - say 8 bed rooms or 7 bedrooms and an oval sitting room…." One entrance and stairway on New Jersey Avenue, marked A in Latrobe's sketch, granted access to each floor. The larger room lower was a domesticated concourse with a view of the commercial confluence of the Potomac and Eastern Branch a mile away. Law was so excited by fan shaped kitchen below the oval that he sketched it in his letter.(7)
In deciding whether Thornton or Lovering designed the house, the building requirement Law faced favors the professional builder and not the amateur architect. In 1796, Lovering had planned twenty houses for Morris and Nicholson that were built in three months. However, the money Law made in India did not relieve him from living up to London standards. His brother Edward was its most famous lawyer and soon to become Lord Ellenborough. But, Lovering certainly didn't emphasize his quick work for Morris and Nicholson. Once he was freed from his salaried job, for which he rarely got paid, Lovering finally hung out his shingle, so to speak. In October 1797 Washington, Georgetown and Alexandria newspapers, he advertised his skills as “Architect, Surveyor and Builder and c." including "to design and make drawings, plans and estimates..." In his Alexandria notice, he added to the headline "(From London)." Was he trying to attract Law's attention? Law should have known Lovering could cater to the upper classes. While not designed by Lovering, the first house in the city that the Laws lived in, the so-called Honeymoon House at the west end of N Street SW, was finished by Lovering. Not far away were the elegant town houses Lovering and Clark built for Greenleaf before he failed and that Lovering struggled to put on the market.(8)
 |
The rub from the building requirement made Law's initial dealings with Thornton unpleasant. As a board member, he voted not to give Law deeds unconditionally. After all, none of the $180,000 Law payed Greenleaf found its way into the commissioners' account. In 1795, when Law needed an architect, he hired Hallet. He had cultivated Hadfield to keep track of work at the Capitol. In 1796, he was enraged that Thornton spread a rumor that the General wanted his private residence in the city on Peter's Hill near Georgetown. In 1797, Law faulted Thornton for not moving to Capitol Hill. At the end of that year, he accused Scott and Thornton of not removing their office to Capitol to placate a developer who promised to build two three story houses if they did. Then in 1798, Law realized that President Adams had no interest in the city. He could no longer go over the heads of the commissioners. He needed a friend on the board and Thornton was the most congenial and accessible.(9)
By the spring of 1798, the Thorntons had become the best friends of the Thomas Laws, and that's when Law needed an innovative house design. At that time, Mrs. Thornton occasionally jotted down dates of their shining moments. In May, the Thorntons dined with the Washingtons at the Laws in their so-called second house on New Jersey Avenue which preceded the next and largest third house. The star in that show had to have been Mrs. Law, the grand daughter everyone had to see. On the weekend of June 24, 1798, the Thorntons had tea with the Laws.(10) That same weekend the commissioner drafted the personal letter to Pickering that he didn't send. He explained Hadfield's insubordination in regards to the Executive office design, and that "the board applied to Mr. Lovering to calculate the expense of erecting such a building." After "Mr. Lovering," Thornton wrote and then crossed out "an ingenious A." Evidently, the rhetorician realized that the secretary of state might misinterpret that aside as a complement relating to Lovering's plain Executive office design. What likely had impressed Thornton was the house design Law had just shown him. Why else would Thornton think that Lovering was an "ingenious A"rchitect the same weekend he had tea with Law?(11)
In all the projects Lovering had worked on, he fulfilled the visions of his patrons. The store front windows on South Capitol were exceptional, and Mr. Henry, Greenleaf’s secretaire economic, was impressed with a 32 foot long room that Lovering fit into one of Greenleaf’s townhouses. However, there is no evidence that Thornton knew anything about Lovering’s work for Greenleaf. No one then or now thought that his cheapening Hadfield's Executive office design was ingenious. Architectural historian Pamela Scott rues that instead of ''Hadfield’s sophisticated, up-to-date neoclassical building," the city got "a traditional, rather old-fashioned Georgian one."(12) Lovering asked the board to hire him to build his design. But the board put his design out for bids and Lovering's was the third lowest. So he did not show his ingenuity as a building contractor for the commissioners. In January 1798, the commissioners asked him to evaluate sashes offered by carpenters for the Capitol. He found that one needed an extra inch, with another static electricity might be a worry. As for the third, the molding was too thin. His ability to school everyone might make Lovering an ingenious carpenter but not an "ingenious A."(13) Thornton had never commented on the design features of the Twenty Buildings and nothing about the small houses likely pleased such an exponent of grandeur. That leaves a current project, the design for Law's house, as what likely was on Thornton's mind when he almost complimented Lovering.
But is there evidence that there was a design when Thornton allegedly saw it on June 24, 1798? According to the commissioners' records, the lot for Law's house was surveyed on September 12. However, on July 10, 1798, Lovering asked the commissioners to apply their payment for his Executive Office design as down payment on lot 12 in Square 691, southwest of the intersection of New Jersey Avenue and C Streets SE. He likely made the request because he knew Law was going to build on the intersection. That suggests that Law had Lovering's design by July 10.(14)
In 1801, another client of Lovering's described how the architect designed and contracted to build houses. The Belgian emigre Henri Joseph Stier broke off negotiations with Benjamin Latrobe for a country mansion in nearby Maryland. Latrobe struck him as “one of those who do not finish their work." He sought out Lovering. In 1800, in a letter to Greenleaf, Law mentioned that “Steer” was staying in one of his houses. Perhaps Law told Stier about Lovering.
Stier's letters explained how Lovering tried to win a client. Lovering came, Stier wrote to his son, “expressly to show me three different plans, rather ingenious but complicated, and with unattractive facades.... He has proposed to direct my construction with such a plan as I will give him, to attend to the progress and the designs in detail, to come twice each week, and that if I want to hire enough workmen to finish it in twelve months, he will do it for $600....”
In her introduction to a collection of Stier's daughter's letters, Margaret Callcott writes that Lovering "was eager to make himself agreeable to the wealthy Belgium, and all during March [1801] he met regularly with the Stiers and gave them tours around completed houses around Washington." They signed a contract on March 24, 1801, a month after first discussing the project. Architectural historians give Lovering little credit for the design of Riverdale since Stier based the design on his house in Belgium.(15)
 |
| 127. Stier's Riverdale |
Lovering might have started working on Law’s design around June 12, a month before Law asked him to draw up a contract. Of course, that Thornton reacted positively to an eccentric floor plan on June 24 doesn’t necessarily prove that it was Lovering's design. It might have been Law’s idea drawn by Lovering, but it certainly wasn’t Thornton’s idea.
Beyond periodic advertisements in newspapers, Lovering was not of that class of men who left a record of what he did and what he hoped to do. Fortunately for history, he was one of the unfortunates ruined by the failures of Greenleaf, Morris and Nicholson. In January 1798, Lovering was sued by Bennet Fenwick and others for payment to cover dishonored notes from Morris and Nicholson that in 1796 Cranch and Prentiss had used to pay for building materials and slaves. Fenwick principally supplied slave laborers. Lovering sent a letter Nicholson who was really at fault but he knew better than to dun him for payment. He merely reported the facts. He explained that he had been arrested for nonpayment. The judge would not let Lovering post bail because he did not own any property. The sheriff posted bail for him, which allowed him to dun Lovering for petty cash on demand. For Lovering, the alternative was going to jail. All this happened after the Maryland legislature’s relatively short annual session. That prevented him from getting relief under the state's new insolvency law until the legislature reassembled in December. If granted, he could work without the money he that passed through his hands being attached by creditors, but creditors could still take what property he had.
He also shared good news with Nicholson. In a March 30, 1798, letter, Lovering crowed that he finally freed himself from the “clutches” of Carroll. That suit dated from 1794. Then in August, he wrote that Carroll was about to win another court judgment against him. During the summer of 1798, ever worried that he might be arrested, his adult son from his first marriage added to Lovering's burdens. He left London and joined his father who coped with that by asking Nicholson to sign over property in Carolina to Richard Lovering. Then they could return to England and sell the property. At the end of August, a friend of Nicholson's warned the speculator of the possible loss of “a man of abilities." Nicholson could do nothing but Law kept him in the country.(19)
Law had an unanticipated problem that they solved together in a way the proves Lovering designed the house. Laying out the lot with commissioner's surveyor also entailed deciding how to level the lot. As well as facing an angled intersection, Lot 1 in Square 689 had a slope angling down to C Street. It could not be leveled to accommodate the design. Law wrote an addendum to the contract, already 8 pages long, that explained that “Mr. Lovering will have an additional story to make….” The addendum also stipulated that "any alteration in the above plan to be allowed for by either party as may be settled between themselves or arbitrators." It designated Hoban and another builder to “arbitrate on any points of dispute.” There was no mention of Thornton.(16)
Then, there was the matter of security. The General required Blagden to put up $4,000 to guarantee that he wouldn't steal what the General forwarded to him for building materials and labor. Hoban, who had much property in the city, helped the mason out. Law helped Lovering out of that problem. He accepted Lovering's half bought lot across the street as security for a $5,800 house.
Finally, Lovering had a misunderstanding with the commissioners that proved that Thornton didn't design Law's house. Lovering still had two more payments to make to the board for the lot he bought near Law's houses. He asked the board that future payments for his Executive Office design be used to cover another payment on the lot. The board claimed it had never said it would pay him more than $300. They advised him to take cash and not the lot. On October 4, he handed the board a letter protesting their not paying him more: “I devoted Chearfully my time and Attention to the Offices and have saved you at least 10,000 in particularizing the Building & c. and tho it would be natural for you Gentlemen unacquainted with the trouble of architectural details to under estimate my Services.…” Would he have insulted Thornton if he had been involved in designing Law’s house?(17)
After claiming that he "made some sacrifices in contracting with Mr. Law," Lovering threw himself on their mercy: "My situation after long residence in this city and after having superintended the construction of two-thirds of the houses in the city entitles me to your consideration for facilities of every kind, as my Misfortune originates in being over zealous and becoming security for my employers and not in any misconduct of my own."
The commissioners didn't budge, but, as Lovering wrote to Nicholson, he would soon get protection under the insolvency act. He would no longer be harassed by lawsuits, and he had "some prospect of doing business next spring."(21) To begin the process, he had to advertise his intention to ask for protection under Maryland's insolvency laws. His advertisement excited his creditors, who then leaned on the sheriff to arrest him. On December 4, Lovering wrote to Nicholson that “the advertisement of my intentions has been a great injury to me for I should have had several buildings.…"(22)
When work began on Law's house in April 1799, Lovering stopped writing to Nicholson. By then the builder had insolvency protection and the speculator was in debtors prison in Philadelphia. Since Thornton and Law were ever active socially and lived nearby, there is little written correspondence between them. However, Thornton did write to Law, who was then at Mount Vernon, in August 1799. At that time, three months of work had been done on his house. The 1799 letter was primarily about Thornton helping to arbitrate a business dispute unrelated to the house. Then it reported on the doings of the other men married to the Custis sisters, Thomas Peter and Lawrence Lewis. Thornton added gossip about Bushrod Washington, the General's favorite nephew and just appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Law was Thornton's connection to his Holy Land, Mount Vernon.(24)
In November 1799, there was a conjunction of gentlemen inspecting the houses Thornton supposedly designed who then repaired to Mount Vernon. If he had designed them, then that the moment passed without his name being associated with the designs is amazing. The letter Law wrote in April 1800 describing his ovals rooms also described the General’s visit to the house in November 1799. Law claimed that “General Washington was so pleased with it, that he said 'I would never recommend to a wife to counteract her husband's wishes but in this instance, and I advise Mrs. Law not to agree to a sale.'" During his visit, the General also saw his own houses and because he spent a night with the Peters across Rock Creek, could easily check on Tayloe’s house. On his return to Mount Vernon, he was accompanied by Law and Commissioners Thornton and White. There is no reason to expect that those gentlemen would celebrate William Lovering for what he did, but they might give their fellow gentleman and charming friend Thornton a pat on the back. Then, two weeks after the General’s visit, Thornton himself joined White in writing about Law’s and Tayloe’s house. They formed the board and wrote a letter alerting President Adams that for lack of money the President's house might not be finished when he moved to the city. If so, they claimed there were three houses that might be rented each better than what the president rented in Philadelphia. In a private letter sent in December, White revealed what houses he and Thornton had in mind: Tayloe's house, Law's house and the country style house Daniel Carroll had built in 1798 just south of Capitol Hill.(25)
However, the shepherds of Thornton's reputation don't mention that unrewarding visit to Mount Vernon, which was the only time he only stayed one night. His wife's diary trumps all, and, in their minds, what she wrote in January 1800, when Law’s oval rooms could be inspected, helped seal Thornton’s posthumous reputation. So starved are historians for documentary evidence that the mere mention of Law’s and Tayloe’s house in her diary has been taken as evidence that Thornton designed both. When C. M. Harris and Pamela Scott cite the diary to prove that Thornton designed Law’s house, they shy from actually quoting the diary. Harris merely opines that "Thornton's role... is partially but substantially documented by his wife's diary for 1800." Scott puts it this way: "It was designed by William Thornton, and was 'a very pleasant roomy house' according to Anna Maria Thornton.” Mrs. Thornton wrote more about her inspection of the house with her husband, Mrs. Law’s sister and her husband Thomas Peter. On Sunday January 12, they found Law's house locked. So, they "entered by the kitchen Window and went all over it— It is a very pleasant roomy house but the Oval drawing room is spoiled by the lowness of the Ceiling, and two Niches, which destroy the shape of the Room….” Her only other mention of the house came on February 17: "Mr. Law is fixed in his new house and is quite pleased with it...."(26)
Certainly, that Thornton climbed through the kitchen window to get inside suggests he had some authority, though his friendship with Law and his touring with Mrs. Law's sister might have given him sufficient license to do that. But how does one account for Mrs. Thornton's criticism of the oval drawing room's low ceiling? Her husband likely informed it. In 1797, Thornton had written to Dr. Fothergill about the Capitol's as yet unbuilt grand oval vestibule that was 114 feet in diameter and "full of broad prominent lights and broad deep shadows." He originally called the grand oval vestibule “the dome.” Perhaps, when he saw the floor plan for Law’s house, he did not understand that the oval rooms would be 12 and 10 feet high. Fitting oval rooms into a five story townhouse was alien to Thornton's sensibilities. By the way, Tayloe's oval room also had a 12 foot ceiling.
All that said, Thornton did draw a design for Law, and Mrs. Thornton’s diary provides the only evidence that he did. Perhaps because drawing a stables doesn’t qualify one for designing an elegant five story brick house with oval rooms, historians don’t mention it. Also, any inference that the genius who designed the stables behind a house also designed the house is dangerous in this case. There is conclusive documentary evidence that Lovering designed the stables and coach house next to Tayloe’s house. The plans are annotated in Lovering’s hand. However, the excitement Mrs. Thornton exhibited for the stables in contrast to her recent criticism of the house proves that her husband didn’t design the house. On February 27, 1800, she wrote "Dr. T- received a note from Mr. Law enclosing a rough Sketch of a plan for a Stables & c. behind his house which is five stories before and three behind, which Dr. T- had promised to lay down for him as he had suggested the ideas - The Stables and Carriage house are to be built at the bottom of the lot and the whole yard to be covered over at one Story height, and gravelled over, so as to have a flat terrass from the Kitchen story all over the extremity of the lot.... Dr. T- engaged in the evening drawing Mr. Law's plan." That was her only description of a Thornton design. The boarding house on Square 689 would advertise that it could accommodate 60 horses but evidently no one ever credited Thornton, which was likely fine with a gentleman of his reputation.(27)
Ridout suggests that Thornton's design for the Octagon was the catalyst for his life long friendship with Tayloe. Actually blood horses were, but it's a nice conceit. As it turned out, Thornton's friendship with Law did not last long. In March 1801, Thornton wrote to Law and lamented: “For a long time past I imagined that I perceived in your behavior a reserve and distance which forbade that free communication with you that frequently took place from a sincere friendship on my part, which I flattered myself was mutual.” The matter was that Law thought Thornton was favoring the west end of the city. Obviously, Thornton had not designed Law’s premier house in the east end.(28)
The project on the other side of Capitol Hill was another matter. That he had not been asked to design the General’s houses hurt, and for six months, he plotted to save his reputation from such a slight.
1. Brown, Glenn 1896, "Dr. William Thornton, Architect." Architectural Record, 1896 , Vol. VI, July-September (page 53ff) pdf.; Clark, Allen Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City; W. H. Bryan, History of the National Capitol, vol. 1 pp. 278-9, 315-6
2. Ibid. p. 311
3.Harris, Papers of William Thornton, p. 588; Ridout V, Orlando Building the Octagon, The American Institute of Architects Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
4. Mount Vernon Museum, "Particular description..." of the house for Thomas Law built on Square 689
5.Corosino, Catherine Ann, The Woodlands: Documentation of an American Interior, Thesis, U. of Penn, 1997; Smith, Ryan, Robert Morris's Folly: The Architectural and Financial Failures of an American Founder, 2014.
6. Scott, Pamela with Charles Carroll Carter and William DiGiacomantonio, Creating Capitol Hill: Place Proprietors, and Peoples. United States Capitol Historical Society, Washington, D.C., 2018.
7. Law to Greenleaf, 9 April 1800, Adams Family Papers; Pratt v. Law, No. 659, , US Supreme Court, 9 Cranch 456 pp. 779ff
8. Alexandria Advertiser 9 October 1797, p. 4; Edward Law did not become Lord Ellenborough and Lord Chief Judge until 1802.
9. Law to GW 6 October 1796 footnote 7.& 4 February 1797 & 8 February 1797 & 27 December 1797.
10. AMT papers on-line volume one, image 83.
11. WT to Pickering 23-25 June 1798 draft;
12. Scott, Pamela, "A Communication Between the Offices: Designing the Executive Office Building 1791-1800." White House Historical Association
13. Lovering to commrs., June 21, 1798; commrs. proceedings June 20, 1798; Lovering to commrs., January 9, 1798, commrs. records.; proceedings 12 January 1798;
14. Lovering to Commissioners, 10 July, Commrs. records.
15. Margaret Law Callcott, editor, Mistress of Riverdale, pp. 28-9;
16. Op. cit. , "Particular description..."
17. Lovering to Commrs. 4 October, 1798, Commrs. records.
18. Lovering to Nicholson 14 January 1798, 30 March 1798,
19. Lovering to Nicholson 30 March 1798, ** August 1798; Samuel Ward to Nicholson, August 31, 1798.
20. Cranch to his mother 16 January 1799
21. Lovering spring
22. Lovering to Nicholson 4 December 1798
23. Lovering to Jefferson 16 June 1802
24. WT to Law 1 August 1799 Harris pp. 404-5
25. Law to Greenleaf, 9 April 1800, Adams papers; GW diary 10 November 1799 ; Commrs to Adams, 21 November 1799; White to Adams 13 December 1799 ( the editors of these on-line papers transcribed "Taylor" but the letter clearly reads "Tayloe;")
26. Mrs. Thornton's Diary p. 94; Scott, Creating Capitol Hill, p. 129; Harris p. 586.
27. Ibid. p. 112
28. WT to Law 9 March 1801, Harris pp. 553-4
Comments
Post a Comment